Exposing inaccurate & false news reports on Catholic matters

smurfhousing

This is a thread to highlight inaccurate and false news reports on Catholic matters. The idea is to post an excerpt from a mainstream media news story, along with a link, then post a refutation of the error or major inaccuracy. We're not looking at pulling up stories for minor, technical, historical or even small theological errors, we're talking about major inaccuracies or blatant falsehoods (whether intentional or not).

It is important for Catholics to draw attention to media bias against the Church in its reporting about the Church and to speak out against such treatment, where it is possible and prudent.

This is not a place for discussion about the stories or the errors themselves - it's solely a place for Catholics (or non-Catholics) to post inaccurate stories, plus refutations, via links and brief excerpts, thus highlighting the bias against the Church in the mainstream media.

Anyone, whether Catholic or not, is welcome to read these entries and to contribute to this thread, according to the ethos and stipulations I've indicated above.

smurfhousing

Source: http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com/2010/03/pope-not-intimidated-by-idle-gossip-is.html

The allegations about Pope Benedict XVI's handling of sexual abuse cases, discussed below, have produced astonishing press misrepresentations which have traversed the world. There is a building narrative about the "intransigent pontiff indifferent to abuse claims."

This false narrative needs to be halted both by those who care about the Catholic Church and by those who care about the credibility of the press.

The latest grave problem focuses on the Pope's supposed remarks about intimidation and petty gossip.

The problem apparently originates in coverage of Pope Benedict's Palm Sunday address. A Reuters piece written by Phil Pullella and linked by Drudge, titled Pope signals won't be intimidated by abuse critics,

Pullella's slant begins on the third paragraph:

"While he did not directly mention the scandal involving sexual abuse of children by priests, parts of his sermon could be applicable to the crisis he and the Roman Catholic Church are facing,"

That "could be" then becomes a basis for a load of inflammatory speculation as the Reuters writer presents himself as a reliable interpreter of these "signals."

His next paragraph reads:

"The pontiff said faith in God helps lead one 'toward the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion.'"

The implication, of course, is that the Pope thinks the abuse allegations are "petty gossip" used to "intimidate" him. This is the hook most major media, including Reuters, used to attract readers and spin the story.

But looking at the whole address gives a much different picture.

Unsurprisingly, the Pope's comments are about Jesus Christ. The source for the quote about intimidation and gossip is at the close of the third paragraph:

But this external rout is above all an image of the interior movement of existence, which occurs in the following of Christ: It is an ascent to the true height of being human. Man can choose an easy path and avoid all toil. He can also descend to what is lower. He can sink into lies and dishonesty. Jesus goes ahead of us, and he goes up to what is above. He leads us to what is great, pure, he leads us to the healthy air of the heights: to life according to truth; to the courage that does not let itself be intimidated by the gossip* of dominant opinions; to the patience that stands up for and supports the other. He leads us to availability to the suffering, to the abandoned; to the loyalty that stands with the other even when the situation makes it difficult.

* It is questionable whether the Pope even meant "gossip." Other accounts translated "gossip" as "chatter," which makes more sense to me. The Italian, "chiacchiericcio," derives from the root verb I learned to use in phrases such as "to chat on the internet."

smurfhousing

David Quinn comments:

In an interview with The Irish Examiner today Labour leader Eamon Gilmore hits out at the Pope over allegedly 'homophobic' remarks the Pope made in December 2008. Only the Pope never said what he is accused of saying.
According to the interview, Gilmore criticised the Pope for comparing homosexuality with the destruction of the rainforests. He instructs Benedict to "temper" his remarks.

Read the rest over at his Irish Catholic blog: http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/gilmore-hits-out-popeand-misses

and the original article on Examiner site: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/gilmore-popes-words-comfort-anti-gay-thugs-123598.html

Interestingly, this archived BBC article features the following footnote:

This article has been amended to make it clear the Pope made no direct reference to homosexuals or transsexuals.

and it is good to see a rebuttal to the Irish Examiner piece featuring Gilmore, from the Irish Catholic Communications Office:

Ireland: Church rebutts 'homophobic Pope' claims
http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=16399

The Irish Catholic Communications Office has issued the following clarification concerning references to Pope Benedict XVI in today's Irish Examiner interview with Mr Eamon Gilmore TD, Leader of the Labour Party.

In the interview, the paper's political correspondent Shaun Connolly writes that Eamon Gilmore urges: "... Pope Benedict XVI to 'temper' statements such as claiming that 'saving' humanity from homosexuality was as important as protecting the rain forests. 'We have many examples of where there is not only discrimination against gay people, but there has been nasty homophobic bullying and assaults on gay people and I think opinions like that give comfort to that.'"

Mr Gilmore seems to be referring to an address by Pope Benedict to cardinals, bishops and priests delivered on 22 December 2008, which was subsequently interpreted incorrectly by some media outlets. The fact is that homosexuality was not referred to anywhere in this text.

For a leader of a political party to misrepresent remarks made by the Holy Father on such a profound subject as human sexuality, is regrettable. Mr Gilmore's comments are also highly offensive to Catholics and anyone with an interest in the truth. The truth is that
the Catholic Church teaches and Pope Benedict XVI has consistently affirmed that 'men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.' (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, 3 June 2003).

In the text referred to by Mr Gilmore, Pope Benedict XVI in fact said that the Church: "has a responsibility towards creation, and must also publicly assert this responsibility. In so doing, she must not only defend earth, water and air as gifts of creation belonging to all. She must also protect man from self destruction.... If the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and demands that this order of creation be respected, this is not some antiquated metaphysics. What is involved here is faith in the Creator and a readiness to listen to the 'language' of creation. To disregard this would be the self-destruction of man himself, and hence the destruction of God's own work."

A reading of the aforementioned text will confirm this.

The prominence given to the interview by the Irish Examiner, with its page one article headline 'Gilmore: Pope's words comfort anti-gay thugs', completely misrepresents the Church's teaching on human sexuality and the message of the Bible on this matter. It also implies a completely unsubstantiated connection between this teaching and behaviour of 'anti-gay thugs' which is condemned and abhorred by the Church.

It is a serious, unacceptable and unfounded distortion of the truth for anyone to suggest that support for Christian marriage is contributing to "homophobic bullying and assaults on gay people." Catholics and other Christians who uphold the Christian tradition of the Scriptures on this matter deserve truth and accuracy from elected representatives and by the media.

Source: Irish Catholic Communications Office

ISAW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvLqR0FChEk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVxq13lQESY
The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003)
Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996)

ISAW

Prof. Charol Shakeshaft, of the School of Education, Virginia Commonwealth University, formerly a professor of the School of Education, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York.

She was commissioned by the US Congress to examine 'educator sexual misconduct' in the US public school system. In her report she found that nearly 10% of U.S. public school students have been targeted with unwanted sexual attention by school employees. Shakeshaft's study, however, estimates that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000 alone.


In 2004, Shakeshaft published a 156-page report for the United States Department of Education titled Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature. In it, she stated that nearly 10% of U.S. public school students, or 4.5 million students, have been the victims of sexual harassment, rape or sexual abuse. The literature review describes among other topics: prevalence of educator sexual misconduct, offender characteristics, targets of educator sexual misconduct, and recommendations for prevention of educator sexual misconduct.

In 1994, Shakeshaft published a report based on a four-year study of 225 sexual abuse complaints--184 in New York State and 41 in other states--against teachers made to federal authorities from 1990 to 1994. She found that "All of the accused admitted sexual abuse of a student, but none of the abusers was reported to the authorities, and only 1 percent lost their license to teach. Only 35 percent suffered negative consequences of any kind, and 39 percent chose to leave their school district, most with positive recommendations. Some were even given an early retirement package."



According to a 2006 National Review Online opinion column republished by CBS News, Shakeshaft said that "... the physical sexual abuse of students in [public] schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by [Catholic] priests." She estimated that about 290,000 students were victimized between 1991 and 2000.



A 2002 New York Times report quoted Shakeshaft, "Only 1 percent of the cases did superintendents follow up to ensure that molesting teachers did not continue teaching elsewhere. In 54 percent, superintendents accepted the teachers' resignations or retirements. Of the 121 teachers removed this way, administrators knew for certain that 16 percent resumed teaching in other districts... Moving molesting teachers from school district to school district is a common phenomenon. And in only 1 percent of the cases do superintendents notify the new school district. The term “passing the trash” is the preferred jargon among educators".



A 2007 Washington Post report noted, "It's a dynamic so common it has its own nicknames: 'passing the trash' or the 'mobile molester.'" In addition, "Maine...has a law that keeps offending teachers' cases secret" and that "in Hawaii, no educators were disciplined by the state in the five years the AP examined, even though some teachers there were serving sentences for various sex crimes during that time. They technically remained teachers, even behind bars." The report also said, "Laws in several states require that even an allegation of sexual misconduct be reported to the state departments that oversee teacher licenses. But there's no consistent enforcement, so such laws are easy to ignore. School officials fear public embarrassment as much as the perpetrators do, Shakeshaft says. They want to avoid the fallout from going up against a popular teacher. They also don't want to get sued by teachers or victims, and they don't want to face a challenge from a strong union."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charol_Shakeshaft


Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature (Policy & Program Studies Service, United States Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary 2004)



http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf



Compare the numbers with the much-publicized Catholic Church scandals.

See also 'Sexual Misconduct in the School System' on Talk of the Nation broadcast by National Public Radio (NPR) in the US.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16046911

smurfhousing

Bland Benedict XVI vs. Superstar John Paul II?

[Describes the nonsensical comparisons that have been made between Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Both teach the same Catholic Doctrine, both say the same sorts of things in their homilies and addresses, but two very different portrayals are made by the media.]

http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2009/01/bland-benedict-xvi-vs-superstar-john-paul.html

Related: The (False) Tale of Two Popes
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2006/09/the_false_tale_.html

antiskeptic

smurfhousing wrote: »

Bland Benedict XVI vs. Superstar John Paul II?

Describes the nonsensical comparisons that have been made between Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Both teach the same Catholic Doctrine, both say the same sorts of things in their homilies and addresses, but two very different portrayals are made by the media.

This is a curious one. Is it not possible that one person will have more charisma than another, have an approach that is more appealing, have a better finger-on-the pulse-of how to reach out. Or even operate in a time more likely to colour peoples view.

In principle even?

I mean JPII arrived on our shores during the tail-end of Roman Catholicism's reign and reaped similar last-hurrah rewards elsewhere in the developed world. Benedict leads a church with the twofold 'enemies' of rampant secularism and a litany of church scandal. He'd have to have charisma pouring out his ears to hope to 'compete' with JPII

ISAW

[QUOTE=ISAW;66647412[/QUOTE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvLqR0FChEk&NR=1

Dr. Philip Jenkins argues that anti-Catholicism has become socially acceptable, though it is no different than any other form of prejudice. Hear him make the case for universal recognition of intolerance.


Note at 7:00 where he points out about the "fancy dress" competition for Halloween. They didn't want Osama Bin Laden dressing because it might be racist. It was won by three people - two pregnant nuns and the Priest who got them pregnant!

ISAW

here is another http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSSZL3sffHI&feature=related

Note from 4:00 where he points out "the opposite to Catholicism is sectarianism"

and quotes a Fr Greely who points out that the problem of subtle media bias is even worse than overt sectarianism because it is not recognised.

sonicthebadger*

ISAW wrote: »

Note from 4:00 where he points out "the opposite to Catholicism is sectarianism"

I beg your pardon? "the opposite to Catholicism is sectarianism" doesn't make any sense as a sentence!

Wouldn't Satanism be a more accurate opposite?

JimiTime

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

I beg your pardon? "the opposite to Catholicism is sectarianism" doesn't make any sense as a sentence!

Wouldn't Satanism be a more accurate opposite?

Catholocism as a word in isolation means 'universalism' IIRC. So sectarianism would in fact be its opposite in terms of English grammar. Of course, once we combine catholocism with a noun, it can be become universal in the realm of the noun, and sectarian outside of the nout. E.G. Roman Catholic Church is not Absolutely universal. You cannot be both a satan worhiper and a Roman Catholic YNWIM?

ISAW

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

I beg your pardon? "the opposite to Catholicism is sectarianism" doesn't make any sense as a sentence!

Wouldn't Satanism be a more accurate opposite?

Go and look at the point made in the video where I indicate it. He takes about 3 minutes to explain it. It makes complete sense and is a valid position whether or not you or I agree with it.

sonicthebadger*

JimiTime wrote: »

Catholocism as a word in isolation means 'universalism' IIRC. So sectarianism would in fact be its opposite in terms of English grammar. Of course, once we combine catholocism with a noun, it can be become universal in the realm of the noun, and sectarian outside of the nout. E.G. Roman Catholic Church is not Absolutely universal. You cannot be both a satan worhiper and a Roman Catholic YNWIM?

Wow, cool! Thanks JimiTime, I did not know that. Look at me getting all edumacated.

ISAW

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Wow, cool! Thanks JimiTime, I did not know that. Look at me getting all edumacated.

Yes the Title probably should refer to "Roman Catholic". Catholic means the one true universal church. I have again referred to "mainstream Christianity" to avoid the confusion of Catholic with Roman and I usually refer to "Roman" or "The Vatican" or "Holy See" . A lot of this should be in a glossary in the charter maybe.

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvLqR0FChEk&NR=1

Dr. Philip Jenkins argues that anti-Catholicism has become socially acceptable, though it is no different than any other form of prejudice. Hear him make the case for universal recognition of intolerance.


Note at 7:00 where he points out about the "fancy dress" competition for Halloween. They didn't want Osama Bin Laden dressing because it might be racist. It was won by three people - two pregnant nuns and the Priest who got them pregnant!

Interesting because Jenkins himself is no longer a Catholic (he converted to the Episcopalian Church). One of my favourite authors btw.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

Interesting because Jenkins himself is no longer a Catholic (he converted to the Episcopalian Church). One of my favourite authors btw.

Which makes all his academic work in anticatholicism even less open to accusations of bias.

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

Which makes all his academic work in anticatholicism even less open to accusations of bias.

Er, yes, that was my point.

smurfhousing

I would like to draw all posters attention to the founding post of this thread which included the following directive:

This is not a place for discussion about the stories or the errors themselves - it's solely a place for Catholics (or non-Catholics) to post inaccurate stories, plus refutations, via links and brief excerpts, thus highlighting the bias against the Church in the mainstream media.

I don't want this thread to turn into a rambling discussion about this and that. It will lose its impact and value. It is solely intended for the posting of news stories and refutations, as indicated in my original post. If you desire to start a discussion thread on a particular story or make general comments, please do so elsewhere on this forum.

I appreciate the co-operation of all in this endeavour, including moderators, in respecting my aspirations for this thread.

magicbastarder

JimiTime wrote: »

Catholocism as a word in isolation means 'universalism' IIRC. So sectarianism would in fact be its opposite in terms of English grammar.

when you capitalise the word, it is taken as referring to the RC church. so the post as originally constructed does actually read as the RC version.

ISAW

smurfhousing wrote: »

I would like to draw all posters attention to the founding post of this thread which included the following directive:

This is not a place for discussion about the stories or the errors themselves - it's solely a place for Catholics (or non-Catholics) to post inaccurate stories, plus refutations, via links and brief excerpts, thus highlighting the bias against the Church in the mainstream media.

Ill have to point out that one of your references in your signature is an internet source and says the following:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/evolution.html

6170 years (thus, the earth is a little over 6,000 years old).

This is NOT the Vatican position.

There is no contradiction in most Christians' minds with the modern scientific view that the Earth is 4.567 billion years of age.


http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/scriptavaria.html

The epoch of galaxy formation
Working Group 2-4 September 1992, Scripta Varia 88,


http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2008/pasbookletevolution.pdf

p.13 refers to over 3,500 million years of biological evolution.

smurfhousing

I'm not a moderator so I would request that the moderators enforce my request for this thread by deleting the non-compliant posts. I thought I had made myself perfectly clear in the first post, and the subsequent reminder:

This is not a place for discussion about the stories or the errors themselves - it's solely a place for Catholics (or non-Catholics) to post inaccurate stories, plus refutations, via links and brief excerpts, thus highlighting the bias against the Church in the mainstream media.

If you want to make comment or discuss ANYTHING, do it outside this thread.

It's a matter of basic respect and courtesy to honour a reasonable request. You don't post comments and musings on the events thread. This is no different. It is meant simply for news stories postings and refutations. No comments or discussions.

PDN

Let's keep it on topic guys!

This thread is for the notification and discussion of what posters see as inaccurate news reporting about the Catholic Church.

ISAW

smurfhousing wrote: »

I
This is not a place for discussion about the stories or the errors themselves - it's solely a place for Catholics (or non-Catholics) to post inaccurate stories, plus refutations, via links and brief excerpts, thus highlighting the bias against the Church in the mainstream media.

If you want to make comment or discuss ANYTHING, do it outside this thread.

It's a matter of basic respect and courtesy to honour a reasonable request. You don't post comments and musings on the events thread. This is no different. It is meant simply for news stories postings and refutations. No comments or discussions.

The claim that the earth is 6000 years old made on the web page which is a "media source" is inaccurate. It is refuted by Vatican documents.

Are you saying this is restricted to news channels or newspapers? None of the earlier links I posted were such.

Fanny Cradock

ISAW wrote: »

The claim that the earth is 6000 years old made on the web page which is a "media source" is inaccurate. It is refuted by Vatican documents.

Are you saying this is restricted to news channels or newspapers? None of the earlier links I posted were such.

Please abide by Smurfhousing's request and keep this thread free of chatter. If you want to discuss specifics then you are, of course, free to start another thread.

ISAW

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Please abide by Smurfhousing's request and keep this thread free of chatter. If you want to discuss specifics then you are, of course, free to start another thread.

I find that unfair .
I'm not clear as to what is a "news story" or "media story" and what is "refutation" as I believe I posted a "story" and a "refutation" from a Vatican source but I will take this to PM.

the other media stories I posted were not current.
And I would also suggest some possible media stories are never reported on or never materialise because of subtle anti Catholic bias.

Fanny Cradock

ISAW wrote: »

I find that unfair .
I'm not clear as to what is a "news story" or "media story" and what is "refutation" as I believe I posted a "story" and a "refutation" from a Vatican source but I will take this to PM.

the other media stories I posted were not current.
And I would also suggest some possible media stories are never reported on or never materialise because of subtle anti Catholic bias.

There is no need to take it to PM. Just do as has been requested of you 3 times on this thread.

ISAW

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is no need to take it to PM. Just do as has been requested of you 3 times on this thread.

I'm still not clear as to what is a "media source" and why I can't post on something which is in contradiction of the Vatican position.

Does this apply as "subtle bias" based on my above postings on anti Catholicism?
A lot ig not mentioned about the Church in pastoral work e.g. St Vincents De Paul

Take a look at this for example
http://www.de.capgemini.com/m/de/tl/World_Wealth_Report_2010.pdf

On page 37 you will see that in the last year when most economies have growth of minus 2 to 2 per cent the number of millionaires is increasing by 20 percent!

Here we have an Irish story
http://www.herald.ie/breaking-news/national-news/number-of-irish-millionaires-soars-2230533.html

From several years ago! Where are the media now?

So when house values and share prices tumbled,the number of millionaires increased by 10 to 20 percent!

The church has preached on social problems and Vincent de Paul for example has collected and distributed more than ever. They do it every day. they did it when farmers in the west were flooded out. But the media seem little interested in all these new millionaires.

Wealth doesn't disappear - it is only redistributed.???

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

I'm still not clear as to what is a "media source" and why I can't post on something which is in contradiction of the Vatican position.

Does this apply as "subtle bias" based on my above postings on anti Catholicism?

If you have a query about a moderator's decision, or a bias you perceive, then please address it by PM or in Feedback. Discussing it inthread is backseat modding - something that is a no-no across the entire site of boards.ie.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

If you have a query about a moderator's decision, or a bias you perceive, then please address it by PM or in Feedback

I don't query the decision and don't think there is any bias . I simply just don't understand what is on topic and what is off topic.
What qualifies as a "news report"?
TV ,radio, newspapers, Press releases, web media, U tube movies, PR firms? What?

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

I don't query the decision and don't think there is any bias . I simply just don't understand what is on topic and what is off topic.
What qualifies as a "news report"?
TV ,radio, newspapers, Press releases, web media, U tube movies, PR firms? What?

Common sense would suggest that TV, radio, newspapers, and possibly mass market books qualify as media.

Private opinions expressed on blogs, church websites, or youtube videos are not generally considered as part of mass media.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

Common sense would suggest that TV, radio, newspapers, and possibly mass market books qualify as media.

Private opinions expressed on blogs, church websites, or you tube videos are not generally considered as part of mass media.

Noam Chomsky writes a lot about media bias but isn't in the mass media ( the reasons for which he gives). Yet many would consider him a source about the mass media. The sources I originally posted are not mass media. If "subtle bias" exists the evidence for it is the LACK of media reports and not the presence of them!
I could suggest other sites cryptome, http://cryptome.org/ disinformation, http://www.disinfo.com/ or history commons http://www.historycommons.org or wikileaks http://wikileaks.org/ ( ... could become as important a journalistic tool
as the Freedom of Information Act. - Time Magazine)
which all post underground or "hidden" information. Are they not media sources?

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

Noam Chomsky writes a lot about media bias but isn't in the mass media ( the reasons for which he gives). Yet many would consider him a source about the mass media. The sources I originally posted are not mass media. If "subtle bias" exists the evidence for it is the LACK of media reports and not the presence of them!
I could suggest other sites cryptome, http://cryptome.org/ disinformation, http://www.disinfo.com/ or history commons http://www.historycommons.org or wikileaks http://wikileaks.org/ ( ... could become as important a journalistic tool
as the Freedom of Information Act. - Time Magazine)
which all post underground or "hidden" information. Are they not media sources?

The OP's intentions are pretty clear, as are yours. Thread officially derailed.